Posted on 10/31/2007 8:08:27 PM PDT by SmithL
FRESNO - Scott Peterson, sentenced to death for murdering his wife, Laci, and her fetus in 2002, isn't entitled to the proceeds of her $250,000 life insurance policy, a state appeals court ruled today.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno upheld a Stanislaus County judge's ruling that Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, the administrator of her estate, should get the insurance money.
The Petersons, who lived in Modesto, took out insurance policies on each other in 2001. Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve 2002, when she was eight months pregnant. Her remains were found on the Richmond shoreline in April 2003, near an area where her husband said he had been fishing.
Scott Peterson was convicted in November 2004 by a jury in Redwood City,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Please people, Conner was a baby.
Nope, no bias here.
So much for his dream of a luxury suite on death row.
The superintendent sent a letter to the director who called the Governor's office. The Gov called someone in DC and the law was changed the next week and signed by the president. I think it was during Reagan.
If Scott Petersen was the beneficiary, no one should receive the money. I can’t stand insurance companies, but they should not have to pay.
One would also think that all 50 states and DC have laws stating the same thing.
Gotta disagree here.In a case like this the proceeds should be paid to her estate so that anyone entitled to inherit a portion of that estate would benefit.
If Scott is on death row, how the heck can he spend the $250,000? So close but yet, so far...
He wouldn't; but his attorney's kids need their college funds, don'cha know!
It would be my guess that as the beneficiary, Scott is the contract recipient of the funds. The insurance company would have to pay out to him under the contract, but the Court ruled that he cannot profit from his crimes, so the insurance company’s payout was probably deposited with the Court instead of to Scott. The Court is just ordering that Scott cannot get the money that the insurance company paid out. And maybe Laci’s mom was an alternative beneficiary, and the court’s ruling just bumped Scott as a beneficiary as if he had predeceased Laci.
OK. Speaking as an attorney, I can’t believe no one pointed out on this thread the sickness illustrated by this story: the American legal system requires a judicial ruling that a man who murders his wife and their unborn child, is found guilty of the murders and is sentenced for those murders, he cannot collect on her life insurance. For this there had to be lawyers, pleadings filed, briefs, argument before a judge, judicial staff time, etc?????!!!!!!
He should be sentenced to be executed, revived and executed again and the judiciary should be disbanded. Let the kid in the local scout troop with the best grade point average judge cases.
It should go to next of kin, which I believe would be children first, then parents, then siblings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.